Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130758›Full record

ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2021

A pilot study of the functionality and clinician acceptance of a clinical decision support tool to improve primary care of opioid use disorder.

Rebecca C Rossom, JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen, Patrick J O'Connor, A Lauren Crain, Laurel Nightingale, Anne Pylkas, Kristen V Huntley, Gavin Bart

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03559179 (Clinical Decision Support for Opioid Use Disorders in Medical Settings), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03559179 nacompletednot on this map

Clinical Decision Support for Opioid Use Disorders in Medical Settings: Pilot Usability Testing in an EMR

TypeinterventionalSponsorHealthPartners InstituteRan2018 to 2019Enrolled55ConditionsOpioid-use DisorderArmsOpioid Wizard
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca C RossomHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Rebecca.C.Rossom@HealthPartners.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9531-914X
JoAnn M Sperl-HillenHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Patrick J O'ConnorHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
A Lauren CrainHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Laurel NightingaleHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Anne PylkasHealthPartners Medical Group, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Kristen V HuntleyCenter for the Clinical Trials Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MA, USA.
Gavin BartUniversity of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
HealthPartners · USNational Institute on Drug Abuse · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Suicide Prediction and Prevention for People at Risk for Opioid Use DisorderUG1DA040316 · NIDA · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GAVIN BART · 2015 to 2026
$42.2M
NIDA NIH HHS 3UG1DA040316NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMost Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive indicated medical care. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool for primary care providers (PCPs) could address this treatment gap. Our primary objective was to build OUD-CDS tool and demonstrate its functionality and accuracy. Secondary objectives were to achieve high use and approval rates and improve PCP confidence in diagnosing and treating OUD.

methodsA convenience sample of 55 PCPs participated. Buprenorphine-waivered PCPs (n = 8) were assigned to the intervention. Non-waivered PCPs (n = 47) were randomized to intervention (n = 24) or control (n = 23). Intervention PCPs received access to the OUD-CDS, which alerted them to patients at potentially increased risk for OUD or overdose and guided diagnosis and treatment. Control PCPs provided care as usual.

resultsThe OUD-CDS was functional and accurate following extensive multi-phased testing. PCPs used the OUD-CDS in 5% of encounters with at-risk patients, far less than the goal of 60%. OUD screening confidence increased for all intervention PCPs and OUD diagnosis increased for non-waivered intervention PCPs. Most PCPs (65%) would recommend the OUD-CDS and found it helpful with screening for OUD and discussing and prescribing OUD medications. DISCUSSION: PCPs generally liked the OUD-CDS, but use rates were low, suggesting the need to modify CDS design, implementation strategies and integration with existing primary care workflows.

conclusionThe OUD-CDS tool was functional and accurate, but PCP use rates were low. Despite low use, the OUD-CDS improved confidence in OUD screening, diagnosis and use of buprenorphine. NIH Trial registration NCT03559179. Date of registration: 06/18/2018. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03559179.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalOpioid-Related DisordersHumansOpiate Substitution TreatmentPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareClinical decision supportOpioid use disorderPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID34130758
PMCPMC8207778
OpenAlexW3168851951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.